A Qualitative Advantage [BEST READ it all at source]30 Aug 2016 Lt. Col. David Berke

"...If you’re trying to measure the capability of a 4th generation aircraft to the F-35, it’s like measuring the capability of a wall phone versus a smartphone. If I held up an iPhone and started asking questions about the phone, you’d want me to ask about how good is the screen, and how fast is the processor? I wouldn’t ask you how easy is it to dial numbers or how clear is the sound quality. It’s not to say you don’t care about it, but if somebody is holding an iPhone, he’s going to be really shocked if you ask a bunch of questions about the phone quality, especially because if all you want to know is how quickly you can dial, or how crisp the sound quality is, then the iPhone is going to lose out to your wall phone by every measure of how to historically measure a phone.

The problem with the F-35 is how you used to measure an airplane is no longer relevant to how you measure this platform, because this platform is doing missions well beyond the missions that a fourth generation airplane was asked to do....

...For someone who is pretty familiar with the role and the impact of tactical aviation in a joint warfight – and I’ve been in combat in the F-18 numerous times – I’m very comfortable saying that the F-35 is a much more capable aircraft in terms of missions. It gives us a qualitative advantage, but more importantly, it has, inherent in its existence, an ability to adapt to missions we’re not even familiar with right now. It’s going to create an ecosystem, and it’s going to facilitate a whole host of other contributors to a network of warfighting information without which we would be at a huge disadvantage.

A lot of people either underestimate or misunderstand the actual capabilities of the F-35. It’s almost impossible to overstate how significant the emergence of this airplane is for the Marine Corps and the joint war force in general. Then you start to incorporate concepts like the F-35B and how expeditionary it is, and where it can operate. It can contribute to joint force missions and provide combatant commanders with a specialized aircraft that offers a persistent capability that may not represent 100 percent of what they need, but it’s available to them all the time....

...I’ve always said this: the greatest advocates of the F-35 are the people closest to the program. The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it. If you ever hear someone pining away for the F-16 of 1979 or the F-18 of 1983 or the F-15 of the mid 70’s, you’re talking to a someone who’s so far behind the technology and what the airplane can do that to me, his criticisms are just totally unwarranted.

The people that know the most about the jet are the people who are the biggest advocates for it. And keep in mind these are people with experience in other airplanes and other warfighting assets. I didn’t grow up on the F-35. I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else, and that’s just because I understand it."

Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.

maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.

A question on collateral damage line of thought. Given the procurement holiday the US basically took on fighters in the late 90's and 2000's are we in agreement that unless you want to change the mission assignments and force structures that all the services need a lot of fighters simply to replace what is warring out? Presuming we are all in agreement that lots of equipment needs to be purchased then it's really a question of what do we buy isn't it?

The way I see it you basically had three options.

1. The F-35 approach with one development program that basically puts in place a baseline capability for all fighter forces across the services.

2. Some mix of new, evolved and legacy equipment that we can all hope is cheaper and still effective.

3. New equipment for all three services.

The problem with 2 and 3 is I am not sure how it works out any cheaper. Option 2 might well do it if you can hold to a single new development in the process but I am not sure it saves you that much. Eurofighter wasn't cheap to develop. The PAK-FA seems to be stuck in never ending development hell too.

Yes we could do things more cheaply if we went with warmed over F-16 and F-18's. No one disputes that. What exactly are you suggesting we do differently?

maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.

Unlike some Navy/Boeing spin artists, Chip Berke flew F-18C, deployed aboard STENNIS, was an instructor at TOPGUN, flew F-16Cs on exchange with the USAF, flew F-22s on exchange with the USAF, and was the CO of the first USMC F-35 squadron -- VMFAT-501. He understands exactly what a Block II SH does or doesn't do.

maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.

The block 2 super hornet has some great new features that the legacy hornet didn't have, AESA radar, better ew, but to be fair the f-35 is another league compared to any jet when it comes to sensors and avionics.

maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.

More sage wisdom from the horse...

The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of itLt.Col. Chip Burke

“It changes the game,” Carlisle said. “It is going to be the difference maker and the backbone of the interoperability capabilities of the future.”

Carlisle acknowledged the evolution of the F-35A has been a “challenging endeavor.”

“It would have been easier to take a different path,” Carlisle said. “But it would have been the wrong answer.”...

...The F-35A program is continuing to move forward with plans to obtain full operational capabilities.

“This is a fantastic airplane,” Carlisle said. “Although there are bumps in the road, I firmly believe this aircraft will only get better and better, and will prove to be one of the most valuable assets in our United States Air Force.”"

Thanks for that - well worth the time to listen to some 'difficult' answers "why the F-35 with newbie sprog nugget pilots" is different and that combo will be much different as they learn how to use the capabilities they have today - TOMORROW.

Much of the current publicity problems of the F-35 are rooted in many years of misrepresentations, development troubles, and lies about them, by the people running the program in the period 2001-2013.

So the fact that the program is finally succeeding is obfuscated by past dissembling.

The twaddle pumped out by some supporters for the last 15 years has discredited people who speak for it now.

The program is essentially 8 years behind schedule. The airplane still has the type of problems that programs usually have at this stage of development. The program is way over cost and development is still far short of what was promised.

Attempts to claim the program is on schedule and at costs by setting the start date for determining those "facts" forward from the Early Bush administration to the very late Obama administration at best only discredit those making the assertion, and at worst "prove" to opponents that the lies continue.

"With today's missiles and radar The F-35 shoots down the fourth generation opponent and never gets within 30 miles."

"...Berke compared the introduction of the F-35 to the introduction of the first iPhone by Steve Jobs. The iPhone single-handedly redefined what we expect our cell phones to do. In turn, the F-35’s capabilities are redefining what a fighter aircraft is expected to do. Like the iPhone, the F-35’s introduction is disruptive, and Berke claims we are only on the cusp of discovering what it might be able to do in the future.

Berke outlined three major differences that put the F-35, and other fifth-generation aircraft (like the F-22), in a league of their own.... [BEST to READ at Source]

"An enemy pilot effectively neutralizes sensor A from one F-35 in a formation of several. The likelihood that enemy will be able to do the same to another F-35 in the same formation is slim to none. It is extremely difficult for the enemy to defeat multiple sensors on multiple F-35s simultaneously. Because the sensors between the F-35s are fused, the pilot in aircraft #1 can simply tap in to aircraft #2’s sensor suite."

...What makes the F-35 most like the iPhone is its user potential. Berke explained that the original iPhone was branded as an Mp3 player, cell phone and internet device, but developers have now made it so much more. Similarly, now that F-35 operators have their hands on the aircraft, they are likely to continue to develop its capabilities, according to Berke.

“The F-35, it’s light years beyond anything we already have,” said Berke. “The only way I know that is I flew F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-35s operationally for 23 years, that’s how I know that.”